- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:47:06 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
At 8:20 PM -0500 9/29/03, pat hayes wrote: ><x-flowed> >> > -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu] >>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:00 PM >>> To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org >>> Subject: imports and commitment - troubled by today's call... >>> >> >> > >>> 2 - I look at the NCI ontology and examine a small portion of it. I >>> think that part is good (the part on oncogenes), but I'm not sure >>> about the whole document (which contains stuff about lifestyles, >>> about fast food restarants, and lots of other things) -- I might like >>> my document to say that I use certain terms from that document, but >>> am not willing to "commit" to the others (I don't say I disagree with >>> the others, just that I'm not willing to buy in) >>> I haven't seen any mechanism to do this > >Why do you need one? Just USE THOSE TERMS in your >document. That's all you need to do. Then >anyone/thing reading your document will find them >,and they will direct him/her/it to NCI, where it >will find some stuff which it can use in drawing >conclusions. If you don't use any of the fast >food vocabulary and there isnt any inference path >from what you have used to it, then it won't get >used (or at any rate, not because of anything you >have said.) > well that is what I approve of - a sort of "follow your nose" - but when I said there is no mechanism for this, I meant in the sense that I haven't seen something specified that makes it clear which things are in an "inference path" and which things aren't -- that said, I'm personally fine with this... [snip] >> >>> 3 - I'm looking for a way to mark up some instance data, and I have a >>> database of information about genetic loci - I see that the NCI >>> ontology has a list of these loci (MYC, PVT, etc) so in my document I >>> define some properties of the nci:locus class and assert my >>> information -- this seems valuable to me because I figure other >>> people will decide if they like the NCI ontology, and if they do >>> maybe they'll find my data and properties useful. (This is a real >>> situation we're trying to encourage some large genetic DB providers >>> to buy into) - the user also may find some other cancer ontologies >>> and define some properties on the terms from that as well.. >>> Difference in this case from 2 is that this user is >>> trying to add >>> their own information to be used with some ontology, and doesn't >>> really care what is in the parent ontology other than some particular >>> class they want to use - perhaps the same mechanism could be used as >>> in 2, but might be a lot of extra work over just using a URI >>> reference (This is my personal favorite for what a URI reference >>> without an imports statement should do) > >Well, it can't ensure that others will use your >stuff, presumably: but I agree this seems >sensible and again, you don't need to do anything >SW-special: if others start using your URIs then >there is an access path back from their use to >your SubCLass assertion to the NCI origin for the >superclass. > >All of this seems to be what might be called >normal-usage on the SW. Ontologies use terms >originating in other ontologies, using the normal >Web linking to provide the traces back for users, >so that inference engines can hopefully find >relevant content. To the extent that the links >aren't broken and the SW-markup composers have >their act together (failure in both of which will >be rapidly detectable), this will probably work >reasonably well with the current 'design' or at >any rate the emerging best-practice. I take it >that our current goal here is to articulate this >best-practice vision as concisely and >'reasonably' as possible without treading on >anyone's methodological toes. I think you and I are in total agreement here (Scary, ain't it) > >> > >>> >>> In essence, I like Tim's idea of a protocol, and that somehow it is >>> between the user and the definer of the URI, but I'm worried that if >>> it becomes transitive (i.e. protocol gets B to understand A, gets C >>> to understand B, gets D to understand C, ...) we cannot distinguish >>> the cases above, or worse, we end up with an everything imports >>> everything type situation (I recently created a version of part of >>> the NCI ontology that includes a reference to something in CYC and to >> > something in WordNet -- my document contains about 20 lines, but if >>> you have to bring in all those things to "understand" it, you get >>> well over a million triples -- this strikes me as a problem) >> >>As I say, this is the very thing that distinguishes the current efforts >>from dozens or hundreds of reasoning systems that have been built before >>it. So I agree, but I would qualify and say it is a *research* >>problem. > >I think we can do better than that. Imports >needn't be understood as 'now you must copy the >transitive closure here before proceeding'. A >much better way to interpret it would be >something like 'this ontology is intended to be >read while supposing that ontology is true', ie >that this ontology gives you, the reader, an >explicit licence to draw any conclusions from the >imported ontology as well as, and together with, >it, the importing ontology. Not, of course, that >you actually *need* that licence, since you are >free to draw any conclusions that you feel like >drawing from whatever sources you, in your >wisdom, decide to trust for whatever purposes >suit you best. But (a) the importing ontology is >trying to be helpful and (b) the endorsement >links may add up a kind of SW-googlizable subWeb >if there are enough of them, which I guess >everyone hopes is going to happen some day , and >(c) if your inference screws up, your lawyers may >be able to put some of the blame on me even if >the cause of the screwup is in the imported >ontology; so I have, by taking this risk, >exhibited some reason why if you trust me, you >maybe should also trust that. three for three... -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 21:47:18 UTC